There are few more distressing sights
than that of an Englishman in a baseball cap
Yeah, we'll die in the class we were born
That's a class of our own, my love

Sitting deep in conversation with each other in a suburban chain coffee bar, two PCSOs in uniform and presumably on duty, ingesting large hot drinks surmounted with volcanoes of whipped cream. In the lavatory, not 15ft away, in constant use by mothers and young children, a junkie’s used syringe rolling on the floor. Happy Christmas, anyway.

I try each day to dress like a pox-doctor’s clerk: bow-tie, waistcoat, regimental shoes,watch and chain. Such apparel actually got me out of the G20 kettle. I simply walked up to a line of security men and said: “Beastly situation, what?” Somewhat embarrassed they shuffled aside.
So let’s get some standards. If you’re in a squat put a bunch of daffs in the window, if you’re going to heave a brick tie try a ribbon round it first, smile at policemen, insist on a cubicle at the Job Centre…..

Yaxley-lennon’s speach in peterborough more or less stated that the protestors were the edl’s enemy, so that’s their stance on the cuts sorted. He also said physically attacking the police should not be tolerated. Odd from a man with convictions for assaulting the police. When asked why he invited pastor jones on c4 news he simply replied “for the publicity”. Honest at least.

I’ve just heard from dear old auntie B.B.C. on my little radio” Camilla has made contact with one of the protesters and Charlie Gilmour has made a statement”. All bullshit.
The propaganda of the media now is to try and bring it back to the celebs we all love so well. The old tart Camilla would have no idear how to speake to the unwashed . That spoiled cunt Charlie Gilmour also does’nt come from a world you and me would recognize . I hope the younger genaration dont fall for this crap like mine did. In the Paris riots of 68 the biggest fear of the state at that time was that students and workers would, eventually , unite. Maybe now the biggest fear for the state in dear old Blytie is young/old/middle and working class ( whatever that means ) or all the rest of us might join together. Well,it seems like we are joining up in our own little way. The lackey orgaisations of the past ,the T.U.C etc must be crying and shaking in their beer. Go for it kids and fuck ém all and be proud of yourselves with what you are all doing. Lots of love. Yours faithfully A Grandad ( TENA ngry brigade) or would like to be.

Liberty is priceless, for everything else there’s Mastercard

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/mastercard-hackers-wikileaks-revenge?CMP=twt_gu

Kevin Rudd (ex PM & current Oz Foreign Secretary) got couped out of power in Oz for trying to slug the mining industry with a tax to pay more more education and health services.

After Assange’s arrest the straight Oz media started running leaked Wikileaks material from US diplomats in Oz bagging Rudd when he was PM for dissing George W Bush (ie intimating that he was an ignorant fuckwit).

In response Rudd’s come out in Assange’s corner offering full Oz Consular support, pointing out that it wasn’t Assange that leaked, but the US that fucked up security-wise. A refreshing change from the usual spineless cringe posturing peddled by mainstream Oz pollies when it comes to the US alliance.

I agree that Assange’s a brave open source warrior whose finger is well on the zeitgeist (in cyberwarfare terms). He confounds the spectacle by subverting it. The man’s an inspiration. Wikileaks will ripple out regardless what happens to him in the hall of mirrors state forces have bound him in.

The only people that need slicing and dicing in the media and held to account for their crimes against humanity are the forces opposed to Assange.

Over half of the country’s leading news journalists were educated in private schools – which account for just 7% of the school population – according to the latest survey carried out by the Sutton Trust

are you suggesting this august journal simply reflects the narrow class interests of an unrepresentative ex-public school elite that sets the daily political agenda for their ex-school mates in the higher echelons of the civil service, the city, parliament and the army?

Why is anyone surprised it is the absolute base note of British society that public school educated children of the rich,successful and ambitious get the top jobs. What is there to say – it has always – quite deliberately been so. The mechanisms are numerous – quick look at CV’s boss sees schools he recognises and reserves them, old boy network, weird cofident voices adopted by public school educatees, weird confidence of public school educatees in which they believe they have the right to these top jobs etc etc

'He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya.'

Then the cable appeared to quote the ambassador saying: 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss.'

The warning is thought to refer to Gaddafi's call in 2008 for a jehad against the Switzerland when police arrested his son Hannibal and daughter-in-law Aline Skaf.

The couple were released and charges relating to an altercation with their servants dropped. However, Libya responded by withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, cutting off oil supplies, denying visas and recalling diplomats.

The importance of the general election context of the Alliance's proposed
programme cannot be overstated. We are fortunate enough to live in what is often described as, and I believe to be, a mature democracy. In a mature democracy political parties are entitled, and expected, to place their policies before the public so that the public can express its opinion on them at the polls. The constitutional importance of this entitlement and expectation is enhanced at election time.

98. If, as here, a political party's desired election broadcast is factually accurate, not sensationalised, and is relevant to a lawful policy on which its candidates are standing for election, I find it difficult to understand on what possible basis it could properly be rejected as being "offensive to public feeling". Voters in a mature democracy may strongly disagree with a policy being promoted by a televised party political broadcast but ought not to be offended by the fact that the policy is being promoted nor, if the promotion is factually accurate and not sensationalised, by the content of the programme. Indeed, in my opinion, the public in a mature democracy are not entitled to be offended by the broadcasting of such a programme. A refusal to transmit such a programme based upon the belief that the programme would be "offensive to very large numbers of viewers" (the letter of 17 May 2001) would not, in my opinion, be capable of being described as "necessary in a democratic society …. for the protection of …. rights of others". Such a refusal would, on the contrary, be positively inimical to the values of a democratic society, to which values it must be assumed that the public adhere.

Why does not half an hour go by that the high priests of the subsidariat, the BBC, can’t resist a snide reference to the popular press, again blissfully oblivious that all too often they are following agendas set by those very popular newspapers whose readers pay their salaries.

And it is Eady who, almost unnoticed here, has the distinction of having provoked the US Congress – in what’s dubbed the Libel Tourism Bill – to consider making English libel judgments unenforceable in America. This follows the judge’s decision to allow a Saudi banker to sue a New York author in the London courts even though she hadn’t published her book in Britain. Not for the first time, it seems that our colonial cousins can teach us a thing or two.

But surely the greatest scandal is that while London boasts scores of eminent judges, one man is given a virtual monopoly of all cases against the media enabling him to bring in a privacy law by the back door.

English Common Law is the collective wisdom of many different judges over the ages. The freedom of the press, I would argue, is far too important to be left to the somewhat desiccated values of a single judge who clearly has an animus against the popular press and the right of people to freedom of expression. I personally would rather have never heard of Max Mosley and the squalid purgatory he inhabits. It is the others I care about: the crooks, the liars, the cheats, the rich and the corrupt sheltering behind a law of privacy being created by an unaccountable judge.

If Gordon Brown wanted to force a privacy law, he would have to set out a bill, arguing his case in both Houses of Parliament, withstand public scrutiny and win a series of votes. Now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with a stroke of his pen.

Lord Bingham assessed the respective roles of Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary and decisively rejected a distinction which the Attorney-General had attempted to draw between democratic institutions such as the Immigration Service and the courts. It was

"wrong to stigmatise judicial decision-making as in some way undemocratic. It is particularly inappropriate in a case such as the present in which Parliament has expressly legislated in section 6 of the 1998 Act to render unlawful any act of a public authority...incompatible with a Convention right.

The greater the legal content of any issue, the greater the potential role of the court, because under our constitution and subject to the sovereign power of parliament it is the function of the courts and not of political bodies to resolve legal questions."

Lesson One: Brains and education have little to do with the craft of journalism which is to ferret for information and then explain it clearly, informatively and above all, entertainingly. Journalists are born, not made, and all the media schools in the world won’t change that. Also: dull doesn’t sell newspapers. Boring doesn’t pay the mortgage.

Are we still talking about that party that came a horrible third in the election and actually lost seats.

The problem is in the words of a famous psephologist, David Beckham, "we didn't get enough vote".

Combine this political and cultural position with the most radical constitutional reform since Cromwell, the break-up of the Kingdom, the destruction of the independent features of the House of Lords, the passing of reserve legislation which could turn the country into a dictatorship overnight, the creation of the surveillance society, the use of the terrorist bogey to convert the police into a state gendarmerie with unlimited power, the politicisation of the judiciary, the politicisation and centralisation of the police, the co-option of the BBC, the sidelining and isolation of the monarchy and the usurpation of its position, and the political domination of much of the media and almost all the universities, and put that next to the extraordinary moves to increase the power of the executive at the expense of the Cabinet and the Commons, and you have something really rather alarming.